Display posts from previous

Sort by

To be fair, Witcher 2 and Deus Ex; IW were both EXCEPTIONAL console versions. Witcher 3 managed to balance both styles, and hopefully '77 goes a step further.

First of all, it's funny that for the next few years we'll be referring to "76" and "77" and everyone will understand the distinction.

As to whether DX:IW and TW2 were "exceptional" console games... that is so far into the realm of opinion that they have named a mountain after it. My own view is that DX:IW was not at all a bad game, but that as one of the first games for the first generation of Xbox/PS2 consoles it definitely suffered from console crippling versus its last-generation PC progenitor. Even Warren Spector has, in so many words, agreed that DX:IW suffered from being console-first.

TW2 is more of a judgment call. Again, I absolutely do not consider it a "bad" game. But I do think, as the first console-first game from CDPR, it visibly suffers from comparison to the PC-specific The Witcher. I mean, that first section alone, where you're walking back and forth on a two-dimensional line punching a dragon on the parapets of a castle, is ludicrously constrained compared to what the original game let you do... and it wasn't even an open-world game. TW2 improved considerably after that. And their high-level design choice of two completely independent Chapter 2 adventures... wow. That's breathtakingly audacious. But the size of each area of the world, and the limitations of action in each area... it just felt noticeably cramped, and "I am the developer and this is the correct way to play my game" to me after the original PC game. "Consolitis" seems to me like a pretty reasonable diagnosis for that experience. Again: not a bad game. But not a game with the feeling of freedom that a PC-only sequel would have had, I believe.

And you'll notice I'm not comparing TW2 to TW3. That wouldn't be fair; TW3 is one of the greatest computer games ever developed, despite being designed within the Procrustean confines of consoles.

Really, it's sort of the highest possible praise I can give CDPR: to say that, despite being designed first for crippled consoles instead of the wide-open PC, The Witcher 3 was so extraordinarily good that I actually think 77 could be completely enjoyable even if it, too, is designed within console constraints.

Definitely looks like a good game, i'd expect nothing less of CDPR. However i'm actually less excited for it than I was, at least based on that gameplay. From what they showed, I don't think it will be my kind of game.

Your opinions are usually very well-founded. So I'm curious: why don't you think 77 will be your kind of game?

Definitely looks like a good game, i'd expect nothing less of CDPR. However i'm actually less excited for it than I was, at least based on that gameplay. From what they showed, I don't think it will be my kind of game.

Your opinions are usually very well-founded. So I'm curious: why don't you think 77 will be your kind of game?

Mainly just personal taste, I'm just not really into shooters. My opinion may change if I see other aspects of the game that are more in line with my prefered ways to play, there is a lot of promise for different playstyles after all. I'll just have to wait and see.

Challenging your assumptions is good for your health, good for your business, and good for your future. Stay skeptical but never undervalue the importance of a new and unfamiliar perspective.Imagination Fertilizer
Beauty may not save the world, but it's the only thing that can

It was my opinion that The Witcher 2 was a phenomenally better game than The Witcher 1. The Witcher 1 suffered from needless over-complicated mechanics, often implemented without a seeming purpose - for instance, the inventory never really forced you to make proper decisions other than "I will not sell swords as loot because they take up a lot of space". Next, the world felt enormously empty. In The Witcher 2, the play areas were still roughly the same size, but they were more vibrant and populated with interesting points. Finally, in terms of combat, TW1 combat was just (in my opinion!) flat-out dull. For someone that greatly enjoys combat in a game, TWI combat was constrained to using the appropriate attacks (of which there were two) on the appropriate monsters. Signs occasionally made things slightly more interesting, but they were of limited help.

In TW2, combat was much more exciting and faster-paced. The potion system was a bit odd, sure, but it worked, and that's more than I could say for TW1, where you felt like you had to grind to get enough ingredients to use if you wanted to go full potionmaster. Witcher 1 had a fairly unimaginative story, and I feel like the bold choice to go for a complete story split in TW2 actually paid off in the end. I have played through Witcher 2 no less than three times, while I managed a single playthrough through TW1 despite repeated attempts to get into it after.

My point on all this being, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, TW2 did not suffer at all because of consoles EXCEPT for the ludicrous hardware requirements (TW3 runs at a higher on my laptop than TW2!!!). That was the messiest, dirtiest thing they did, as far as I'm concerned.

Apart from the horrific scene with the dragon on the parapets. THAT was a mistake.

Definitely looks like a good game, i'd expect nothing less of CDPR. However i'm actually less excited for it than I was, at least based on that gameplay. From what they showed, I don't think it will be my kind of game.

Your opinions are usually very well-founded. So I'm curious: why don't you think 77 will be your kind of game?

Mainly just personal taste, I'm just not really into shooters. My opinion may change if I see other aspects of the game that are more in line with my prefered ways to play, there is a lot of promise for different playstyles after all. I'll just have to wait and see.

No need, Hyperion. Cyberpunk 2020 was very much a gunplay game. Naturally, 2077 will be a gunplay game as well. If you play it you may get some distance into it while you find the systems interesting, and then it will likely bore you.

Watched the gameplay video. Looks like a fun game. I don't play many FPS games so likely I would royally stink, but maybe sometime in the future I might give the game a shot. I am slightly astonished at all the hype though... sure there's a lot of extremely cool stuff (coolest of which are the crowds!) but I'm sure it's gonna have its fair share of glaring shortcomings.

No need, Hyperion. Cyberpunk 2020 was very much a gunplay game. Naturally, 2077 will be a gunplay game as well. If you play it you may get some distance into it while you find the systems interesting, and then it will likely bore you.

I'm not sure that's completely true - it was an RPG with several classes, some of which don't seem to focus on guns (rockerboy, netrunner, medic, techie, etc)
I'm personally more interested to see how the game plays as a netrunner

It was my opinion that The Witcher 2 was a phenomenally better game than The Witcher 1. The Witcher 1 suffered from needless over-complicated mechanics, often implemented without a seeming purpose - for instance, the inventory never really forced you to make proper decisions other than "I will not sell swords as loot because they take up a lot of space". Next, the world felt enormously empty. In The Witcher 2, the play areas were still roughly the same size, but they were more vibrant and populated with interesting points. Finally, in terms of combat, TW1 combat was just (in my opinion!) flat-out dull. For someone that greatly enjoys combat in a game, TWI combat was constrained to using the appropriate attacks (of which there were two) on the appropriate monsters. Signs occasionally made things slightly more interesting, but they were of limited help.

In TW2, combat was much more exciting and faster-paced. The potion system was a bit odd, sure, but it worked, and that's more than I could say for TW1, where you felt like you had to grind to get enough ingredients to use if you wanted to go full potionmaster. Witcher 1 had a fairly unimaginative story, and I feel like the bold choice to go for a complete story split in TW2 actually paid off in the end. I have played through Witcher 2 no less than three times, while I managed a single playthrough through TW1 despite repeated attempts to get into it after.

My point on all this being, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In my opinion, TW2 did not suffer at all because of consoles EXCEPT for the ludicrous hardware requirements (TW3 runs at a higher on my laptop than TW2!!!). That was the messiest, dirtiest thing they did, as far as I'm concerned.

Apart from the horrific scene with the dragon on the parapets. THAT was a mistake.

Every bit of this was well said.

I continue to come to a different conclusion because I see The Witcher -- all three of the games -- as more than just a fighting game. I mean, certainly that's a big part of it! Geralt is, after all, a monster-hunter. But I'd bet you that CDPR would bristle at the notion that combat is the most important part of these games -- they work far too hard on the world-building and character-driven story to dismiss those elements.

It's because I prioritize those elements, and not the poking-things-with-a-pointed-stick that other games can deliver more intensely (such as the Dark Souls type games, from what I've heard), that I give the nod to TW1 over TW2. I'd agree that the artfulness of storytelling was enhanced in TW2, but I disagree that TW1's perfectly Witchery subversion of the "rescue the princess" trope was vastly inferior to the "choice of ally" story of TW2. And again, I think the smaller areas of the console-first TW2 versus those of the PC-only TW1 reduce the fun of exploration. I'd also argue that places weren't all that barren in TW1 versus TW2 -- I don't know about you, but I picked several bushel baskets full of balisse fruits.

At the end of the day, my multiple playthroughs of TW1 versus one labored slog through TW2 are because the original PC game gave me more of the stuff I like. So there's certainly a aspect of personal taste there. If TW2 tickled your fancy better, I'm glad you enjoyed it.

But which is better on a more objective basis?

Maybe neither of us is qualified to answer that!

But TW3 is one of the greatest computer games ever made, regardless of platform. On that, no disagreement will be tolerated.

I will absolutely agree that TW1 had better atmosphere and world-building. I would also agree that TW1 felt "more expansive" while TW2 had "setpiece" areas. I didn't like the empty feeling of TW1. With TW1, you felt like you were only seeing the tip of the iceberg - like there was a whole world there you were missing because you didn't read the books. You didn't feel that way so much with TW2. So I don't have only praise to give to #2.

I'd also like to emphasize that this is only my opinion and how I see the game, and I'm not saying you're wrong by any means. My favorite part of Dwarf Fortress adventure mode is the combat. My favorite part in many games is the combat. I'm a HUGE fan of Doom 2016. So yes, I'm biased there a bit. But I do love the story in all the games, and I ended up reading all the books too. It was the world that captivated me, really. I just enjoyed how it was told better in 2 than 1. That's really all there is to it.

And there is no debate from me that TW3 is a "landmark" game in the history of gaming - perhaps more so than most "landmark" games have been.

Today I watched the 48mins video of gameplay.
It was "mostly ok" up to the point where the protagonist goes to that surgeon and literally forfeits one of her own eyes for a cybernetic implant.
Not to mention the other work done on her right hand. I must have missed a sequence: how long did she think this decision over???
It all happened as if getting mutilated in a basement and forever giving up pieces of one's body was the most natural thing to do. In day-hospital too.
I understand that this is "cyberpunk" and that cybernetic implants/augmentations are [among the] pivotal points of it, but... the manner in which it all was presented and played-out felt terribly out of place to me.
She acted as if it was not even her body. I do not know how to best define this: unrealistic? Grotesque? "Too much"?

The biggest complaint I have with the game is another, though. The dialogues. I have been reading and writing english for over 3 decades now. While not perfect, I can definitely read fast and understand almost everything.
And yet -watching the video- I totally depended on the subtitles to grasp the words and follow what was going on. Part of the problem was the slang. Part was the unusual accent of the actors. Part was the generally low volume of the speech. And maybe part were the font's color and size too.
Often the dialogues were so fast-paced that I could not finish to read the sentences. I managed to infer what had just been said by the context, anyway, but I could not enjoy the show, really. This is very bad. Since the english option is too "hardcore" even for me, to enjoy this game I will have to hope for a proper adaptation in my native language: which is not going to happen; not in my country, no sir. I began to play games in english for a reason!
How can CDPR fail to see the problem?

It was "mostly ok" up to the point where the protagonist goes to that surgeon and literally forfeits one of her own eyes for a cybernetic implant.
Not to mention the other work done on her right hand. I must have missed a sequence: how long did she think this decision over???

I didn't really see anything wrong with it. It's fairly obvious to me that she's already had some work done, with that cable in her left wrist and its apparent interface with her vision.

It all happened as if getting mutilated in a basement and forever giving up pieces of one's body was the most natural thing to do.

I think this is the point of that scene: to make it very clear that this is a thing that is done, especially in our protagonist's line of work. The procedure done to her hand seemed like it was handled as casually as a tattoo, which seems to more or less fit with the extent of the modification; it's largely just an interface pad, maybe with some sensors and electrostimulators to help out with aiming and stuff. The eye replacement went quickly enough (and the character even remained conscious) that I wonder if the eye had already been replaced, and this was just an upgrade.
And to be honest, I didn't find it that shocking. What's so personal about an eye? I mean, it's basically just a camera with some fancy pigments. Replacing body parts is well below my shock value. Sure, it'd be nice to go through life with the same bits you started out with, but I see as little utility in sticking with the idea despite alternatives as with my computer's components. The bits get old and either start falling apart or become obsolete. Such is the way of the world. But the machine as a whole need not be discarded just because, say, the hard disks fail. There's plenty of good hardware in there, and it's already in a pattern that (at least mostly) works.
Most of my reservations are of the "surgery seems like a painful and expensive thing to do" or "what if the hardware isn't as great an upgrade as previously thought" kinds, or just base squickiness. The first two are quite surmountable, and the last is hardly worth discussing. About the only solid one in my mind is "what about the security risks?"

Today I watched the 48mins video of gameplay.
It was "mostly ok" up to the point where the protagonist goes to that surgeon and literally forfeits one of her own eyes for a cybernetic implant.
Not to mention the other work done on her right hand. I must have missed a sequence: how long did she think this decision over???
It all happened as if getting mutilated in a basement and forever giving up pieces of one's body was the most natural thing to do. In day-hospital too.
I understand that this is "cyberpunk" and that cybernetic implants/augmentations are [among the] pivotal points of it, but... the manner in which it all was presented and played-out felt terribly out of place to me.
She acted as if it was not even her body. I do not know how to best define this: unrealistic? Grotesque? "Too much"?

she came in saying that she wanted the hand upgrade. quite literally.

and considering that the doc just used a grabber and not any surgical equipment to get the eye out (without anesthesia!) suggests pretty strongly that that eye already was cyberware.
and the fact that she got a connection to the new eye before the doc was even done properly removing the old one also suggests that the interface ware was already there, and thus no natural eye either

fox wrote:
The biggest complaint I have with the game is another, though. The dialogues. I have been reading and writing english for over 3 decades now. While not perfect, I can definitely read fast and understand almost everything.
And yet -watching the video- I totally depended on the subtitles to grasp the words and follow what was going on. Part of the problem was the slang. Part was the unusual accent of the actors. Part was the generally low volume of the speech. And maybe part were the font's color and size too.
Often the dialogues were so fast-paced that I could not finish to read the sentences. I managed to infer what had just been said by the context, anyway, but I could not enjoy the show, really. This is very bad. Since the english option is too "hardcore" even for me, to enjoy this game I will have to hope for a proper adaptation in my native language: which is not going to happen; not in my country, no sir. I began to play games in english for a reason!
How can CDPR fail to see the problem?

i had no problem with understanding them
and i only properly learned english in the last 6 ish years.

I am looking forward to these SO much right now. Each of them seems like it will showcase the state of the art in what PC games could have become if consoles hadn't taken over around A.D. 2000. And also notice that all of them are somewhat science fiction-based -- that's an interesting change from the fantasy trope games (apart from Kingdom Come: Deliverance) that are so common.

These three games cannot get here soon enough for me. In the meantime, back to my nth replay of System Shock 2.